You guys already have most of what is needed for a computer with an Open Sourced CPU.
At present, no one else makes a desktop RISC-V computer. There is one that can be turned into a desktop computer, but it's clumsy and costly. At present, everything else is for IoT or other embedded uses. (Like what nVidia and Western Data are doing.)
Without a usable desktop, (or small server), RISC-V software development for kernel and support hardware is going slowly.
If you make it was the same I/O as say a fit-PC4, that would allow the new computer to be quite usable. Perhaps not fine tuned as existing, (and not as fast).
So what do you think?
fit-PC or fitlet with RISC-V64GC processor?
fit-PC or fitlet with RISC-V64GC processor?
Arwen Evenstar
Rivendale, Middle Earth
Rivendale, Middle Earth
Re: fit-PC or fitlet with RISC-V64GC processor?
Thank you for your suggestion.
Compulab also has an embedded product line, with RISC CPUbased systems.
Products such as the IoT gateways:
https://www.compulab.com/products/iot-gateways/
Compulab also has an embedded product line, with RISC CPUbased systems.
Products such as the IoT gateways:
https://www.compulab.com/products/iot-gateways/
Re: fit-PC or fitlet with RISC-V64GC processor?
This wish list item was asking for not just any RISC architecture CPU (like MIPS or ARM) but specifically for the CPU architecture known, perhaps confusingly, as "RISC-V".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC-V
Of the three products in your link, two of them are apparently ARM-based (so RISC, yes, but not RISC-V) and one of them is apparently Intel (so presumably CISC, i.e. not RISC at all, but the wish list wasn't highlighting RISC v. CISC but RISC-V v. everything else).
The key difference is in the openness philosophy and, at a more practical level, the licensing arrangements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC-V
Of the three products in your link, two of them are apparently ARM-based (so RISC, yes, but not RISC-V) and one of them is apparently Intel (so presumably CISC, i.e. not RISC at all, but the wish list wasn't highlighting RISC v. CISC but RISC-V v. everything else).
The key difference is in the openness philosophy and, at a more practical level, the licensing arrangements.